On "universal salvation"

[Amazing Rando]

I'm now going to stop procrastinating and write the paper for Systematic Theology that's due tomorrow on the topic of universalism (i.e. universal salvation). Hopefully I should be able to finish it tonight, and I'll post it here then. I would, as always, welcome comments and/or criticism you may have.

[Amazing Rando]

Okay, here it is!

The main text I worked with was the section entitled "Interlude: is there a dual destiny?" from Joe Jones' A Grammar of the Christian Faith (http://www.grammaroffaith.com/), in which he lays out his case for universalism. A good biblically based rebuttal to the common Christian universalist position can be found in N.T. Wright, Themelios, January 1979 (pp.54-58). That's the Wright article I quote from several times in this paper. The Justo Gonzalez quotation is from The Story of Christianity, Volume I. I would love to hear any comments you may have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob Arner 12-7-05
Systematic Theology I

Eschatology: Universal Salvation


In the purposes of God, salvation (in all its rich, biblical senses- not just the popular “individual souls going to heaven” sense) is clearly God’s nature and his will for his creation. Yet the question is sometimes raised by theologians who perceive this trend- will God’s salvific acts on behalf of his creation extend to every one of us? Or in other words, will all humanity eventually be saved? Joe R. Jones tackles this question head-on in his book A Grammar of Christian Faith by addressing the issue of whether or not humankind is bound for a “dual destiny,” as he calls it. I would like now to examine Jones’ point of view in order to weigh its merits and shortcomings in light of the scriptural witness.

Jones opens his “Interlude” section on dual destiny by admitting that “this conviction has been an essential presupposition of much Christian soteriological and eschatological discourse and practice” (709). Wishing to challenge this fundamental assumption, Jones posits that “ultimately, the class of the unsaved or damned is empty” (710). Now clearly, this needs to be considered the Christian’s ultimate hope. For Christians who truly heed Christ’s call to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, wishing for someone to reject God and be subject to his holy judgment as a result is not an option. Scripture is also clear that God’s own desire is for all to humble themselves before him and so be saved through Jesus Christ (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9), so in effect, I believe that one could safely say that universal salvation is the will of God insofar that God would like that all would come to worship him. This is confirmed by the general trend throughout scripture of God consistently reaching out to his creation when they fall into sin, whether through the series of covenants made throughout the Old Testament, the prophets God sends to call his people to repentance, or the ultimate act of divine initiative, the Incarnation of Christ. In this, I believe Jones accurately assesses God’s will.

Where I differ with Jones is in my reading of the Bible that suggests that unfortunately, God’s will (qelhma) is not always accomplished. I do not believe that God imposes his will on his creation without their consent, for this very idea shatters the notion of covenant that runs so deeply throughout the scriptures. A covenant is a two-way street, and includes God’s promise of faithfulness, blessing and salvation as long as the people entering into the covenantal relationship with the Lord remain faithful. In this regard, the covenantal promises throughout scripture are almost always conditional.

The biggest problem I see in Jones’ presentation is that he simply does not argue from scripture. That is not to say that his argument is not biblical, for he does demonstrate a profound respect for the salvific trends running throughout scripture, but in making his case, he neither draws upon specific texts to support his view nor reckons seriously with the vast quantity of scriptural evidence that seems to repudiate his notion of universal salvation. Along these lines, N.T. Wright notes in “Toward a Biblical View of Universalism” that “the proponents of universalism admit very readily that their doctrine conflicts with much biblical teaching” (55). To this effect, Jones himself even concedes that “dual destiny seems to be a theme of much biblical testimony” (711). The one biblical text Jones offers as support for his position is 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, and his argument seems to hinge on the translation of one word, katargew. Why, he asks, should we interpret katargew to mean “something like ‘annihilation’” for the powers and rulers when in the same passage, the powers and rulers are said to “submit” (upotassw) to Christ? (711) The major problem with this objection is that the range of meaning for katargew is not unlimited. It can mean “abolish, cancel, nullify, destroy, do away with,” according to several common Greek dictionaries and lexicons I consulted. A theology of salvation must start with a firm groundwork of scripture, but Jones seems to have jumped immediately over the biblical texts that challenge his position, with nary even a hat tip in their direction, and proceeded directly to the second-level theologizing. While this in itself is not an illegitimate line of argumentation, it leaves the possibility (and it seems, the probability) that far to much of what the scriptures actually say is being ignored in favor of a therapeutic soteriology of universalism that tickles the ears of modern readers.

Jones then goes on to acknowledge the lack of favor universalism has historically received in the Church, saying “I will also concede that dual destiny is a central theme of much of the traditions’ talk about salvation and eschatology” (712), but chalks this up to his belief that it has been a mostly unexamined premise of historical theology and eschatology. Sticking with the theme of historical Christian tradition for a moment, we see that the idea of universal salvation was first proposed by Origen, writing in the early third century, about what he called Apokatastasis, or the belief that all creatures (including the devil) would ultimately be saved and that the world “is undergoing a process of restoration to one and the same end and likeness” (Origen, De Principiis Book I, Chapter 6, section 4). Origen, part of the Alexandrian school of biblical hermeneutics, was typically known for his emphasis on allegorical interpretation of scripture. Though he was a firm proponent of preserving the “traditions of the apostles” in Church teaching, Origen also felt free to engage in “great speculative flights” with regard to scriptural interpretation. The danger of teaching such allegorical interpretations as normative as Origen often did is that the authorial intent of scripture is all-too-frequently lost in favor of a subjective, “spiritual” reading of the Bible. Gonzalez ultimately evaluates Origen’s efforts with a degree of skepticism: “it is also important to note that on many points Origen is more Platonist than Christian” (81). This evaluation is accurate due to the Platonic influence, which is both overly dualistic and spiritualistic, that runs throughout Origen’s writings. This same tendency can be seen in Jones’ thought, particularly in his skipping over an exploration of the biblical texts and proceeding directly to the second level of theologizing.

Jones’ main argument for universal salvation is offered on the grounds of the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace. “We ground our hope for the future,” he writes, “in God’s sovereign and free self-determined grace and not in our own righteousness or in fear of our own unrighteousness and God’s judgment or in fear of the withdrawal of God’s grace” (716). While I know of no biblical Christian who would reject this statement as written as an accurate description of the Christian hope in the grace of God, the conspicuous part of Jones’ argument is what he implicitly does not say. The Pauline doctrine of justification by grace, the “rediscovery” of which was a major pillar of Reformation theology simply cannot be used to prop up a universalist eschatology because of the scriptural conditions placed upon this grace, namely faith. Ephesians 2:8 notes that, “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Faith is the means by which grace is transmitted. As such, N.T. Wright cites the usual deficiency in the universalist line of argumentation: “most exegetes would agree that one of Paul’s foundational doctrines is justification by faith, which has its dark side in the implication: no faith, no justification” (55). Against such lines of objections, Jones’ only logical recourse is to postulate a postmortem encounter with the living God in which “God’s gracious love ‘irresistibly’ confronts and empowers all persons- even the most horrendously evil- to say an authentic and gracious yes to God,” in which “we will all be irresistibly moved by God’s almighty love” (723). This is certainly a lovely and attractive argument: when all is revealed and laid bare before unrepentant eyes that have finally been opened by God’s glorious light, who could possibly say no to God?

This is Jones’ writing at its best and most compelling… but also at its least biblical. The scriptural witness is clear that even when presented with the glory of God in all its splendor, there are those who will prefer the darkness of ignorance and evil to the light of the truth and righteousness of God. Jesus, YHWH’s fullest revelation to his people, was mocked, beaten, cursed, and ultimately killed by those to whom he was sent. Israel had God’s glorious revelation in her midst, yet many still turned away from Him. Right after the great declaration of God’s loving action on behalf of his creation in John 3:16, Jesus himself declared to Nicodemus, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed” (John 3:19-20). I can only concur with the verdict- the light of God’s presence is already in the world, and yet still, it is rejected by some.

As a result of this rejection, “Dual destiny,” to borrow Jones’ somewhat pejorative terminology for the traditional belief of orthodox Christianity, is so clearly expressed throughout the scriptures that it frankly takes a remarkable feat of willful ignorance not to see it. It is there running throughout the Hebrew scriptures, including one of the earliest that mentions the resurrection of the dead, Daniel 12:1-3 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” Despite the apocalyptic imagery and rhetoric, one can clearly see the implication of such a “dual destiny” amidst the good news of deliverance: Many of the dead will arise, some to “everlasting life” and others to “shame and everlasting contempt.”

The scriptural witness could not be clearer- we will not all share the same ultimate destiny despite however much we might wish for universal redemption and reconciliation. What is not clear in the scriptures is the nature of the destiny of the “unsaved.” Against the traditional view of hell as some sort of everlasting conscious torment, some have posited an “annihilationist” view whereby the unredeemed are simply destroyed or wiped out of existence, thereby allowing Christ to reconcile “all things to himself” as Colossians 1:20 declares, while still allowing for the possibility of “dual destiny.” This is the direction toward which I find myself leaning because it seems to me to best account for the bulk of the scriptural eschatological statements. Whatever one’s views of the nature of the destiny of the unredeemed, the doctrine of an alternate destiny cannot be denied by those for whom scripture is the final, authoritative teacher on matters of faith.

In closing, I reiterate my statement at the outset of this exploration: salvation for all, including our worst enemies must be the ultimate hope of Christians who embrace Christ’s call to love one’s enemies. Yet the biblical witness consistently and plainly teaches that despite our best wishes, this cannot be the case. Wright’s concluding comments in “Toward a Biblical View of Universalism” seem an appropriate way to conclude this discussion:

"I frequently meet people who tell me that they are ‘universalists’ in the usual sense while in no way thinking the Bible supports their view. This position is perfectly clear: I simply disagree with its view of scripture, of God and of Christ. What is not even clear is the position of the person who maintains that universalism finds support in the Bible. It might be more comforting if it did: but we are in this business to discover truth." (58)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments or criticism?

:deal:

[Duder]

Okay, here it is!

The main text I worked with was the section entitled "Interlude: is there a dual destiny?" from Joe Jones' A Grammar of the Christian Faith (http://www.grammaroffaith.com/), in which he lays out his case for universalism. A good biblically based rebuttal to the common Christian universalist position can be found in N.T. Wright, Themelios, January 1979 (pp.54-58). That's the Wright article I quote from several times in this paper. The Justo Gonzalez quotation is from The Story of Christianity, Volume I. I would love to hear any comments you may have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob Arner 12-7-05
Systematic Theology I

Eschatology: Universal Salvation


In the purposes of God, salvation (in all its rich, biblical senses- not just the popular “individual souls going to heaven” sense) is clearly God’s nature and his will for his creation. Yet the question is sometimes raised by theologians who perceive this trend- will God’s salvific acts on behalf of his creation extend to every one of us? Or in other words, will all humanity eventually be saved? Joe R. Jones tackles this question head-on in his book A Grammar of Christian Faith by addressing the issue of whether or not humankind is bound for a “dual destiny,” as he calls it. I would like now to examine Jones’ point of view in order to weigh its merits and shortcomings in light of the scriptural witness.

Jones opens his “Interlude” section on dual destiny by admitting that “this conviction has been an essential presupposition of much Christian soteriological and eschatological discourse and practice” (709). Wishing to challenge this fundamental assumption, Jones posits that “ultimately, the class of the unsaved or damned is empty” (710). Now clearly, this needs to be considered the Christian’s ultimate hope. For Christians who truly heed Christ’s call to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, wishing for someone to reject God and be subject to his holy judgment as a result is not an option. Scripture is also clear that God’s own desire is for all to humble themselves before him and so be saved through Jesus Christ (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9), so in effect, I believe that one could safely say that universal salvation is the will of God insofar that God would like that all would come to worship him. This is confirmed by the general trend throughout scripture of God consistently reaching out to his creation when they fall into sin, whether through the series of covenants made throughout the Old Testament, the prophets God sends to call his people to repentance, or the ultimate act of divine initiative, the Incarnation of Christ. In this, I believe Jones accurately assesses God’s will.

Where I differ with Jones is in my reading of the Bible that suggests that unfortunately, God’s will (qelhma) is not always accomplished. I do not believe that God imposes his will on his creation without their consent, for this very idea shatters the notion of covenant that runs so deeply throughout the scriptures. A covenant is a two-way street, and includes God’s promise of faithfulness, blessing and salvation as long as the people entering into the covenantal relationship with the Lord remain faithful. In this regard, the covenantal promises throughout scripture are almost always conditional.

The biggest problem I see in Jones’ presentation is that he simply does not argue from scripture. That is not to say that his argument is not biblical, for he does demonstrate a profound respect for the salvific trends running throughout scripture, but in making his case, he neither draws upon specific texts to support his view nor reckons seriously with the vast quantity of scriptural evidence that seems to repudiate his notion of universal salvation. Along these lines, N.T. Wright notes in “Toward a Biblical View of Universalism” that “the proponents of universalism admit very readily that their doctrine conflicts with much biblical teaching” (55). To this effect, Jones himself even concedes that “dual destiny seems to be a theme of much biblical testimony” (711). The one biblical text Jones offers as support for his position is 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, and his argument seems to hinge on the translation of one word, katargew. Why, he asks, should we interpret katargew to mean “something like ‘annihilation’” for the powers and rulers when in the same passage, the powers and rulers are said to “submit” (upotassw) to Christ? (711) The major problem with this objection is that the range of meaning for katargew is not unlimited. It can mean “abolish, cancel, nullify, destroy, do away with,” according to several common Greek dictionaries and lexicons I consulted. A theology of salvation must start with a firm groundwork of scripture, but Jones seems to have jumped immediately over the biblical texts that challenge his position, with nary even a hat tip in their direction, and proceeded directly to the second-level theologizing. While this in itself is not an illegitimate line of argumentation, it leaves the possibility (and it seems, the probability) that far to much of what the scriptures actually say is being ignored in favor of a therapeutic soteriology of universalism that tickles the ears of modern readers.

Jones then goes on to acknowledge the lack of favor universalism has historically received in the Church, saying “I will also concede that dual destiny is a central theme of much of the traditions’ talk about salvation and eschatology” (712), but chalks this up to his belief that it has been a mostly unexamined premise of historical theology and eschatology. Sticking with the theme of historical Christian tradition for a moment, we see that the idea of universal salvation was first proposed by Origen, writing in the early third century, about what he called Apokatastasis, or the belief that all creatures (including the devil) would ultimately be saved and that the world “is undergoing a process of restoration to one and the same end and likeness” (Origen, De Principiis Book I, Chapter 6, section 4). Origen, part of the Alexandrian school of biblical hermeneutics, was typically known for his emphasis on allegorical interpretation of scripture. Though he was a firm proponent of preserving the “traditions of the apostles” in Church teaching, Origen also felt free to engage in “great speculative flights” with regard to scriptural interpretation. The danger of teaching such allegorical interpretations as normative as Origen often did is that the authorial intent of scripture is all-too-frequently lost in favor of a subjective, “spiritual” reading of the Bible. Gonzalez ultimately evaluates Origen’s efforts with a degree of skepticism: “it is also important to note that on many points Origen is more Platonist than Christian” (81). This evaluation is accurate due to the Platonic influence, which is both overly dualistic and spiritualistic, that runs throughout Origen’s writings. This same tendency can be seen in Jones’ thought, particularly in his skipping over an exploration of the biblical texts and proceeding directly to the second level of theologizing.

Jones’ main argument for universal salvation is offered on the grounds of the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace. “We ground our hope for the future,” he writes, “in God’s sovereign and free self-determined grace and not in our own righteousness or in fear of our own unrighteousness and God’s judgment or in fear of the withdrawal of God’s grace” (716). While I know of no biblical Christian who would reject this statement as written as an accurate description of the Christian hope in the grace of God, the conspicuous part of Jones’ argument is what he implicitly does not say. The Pauline doctrine of justification by grace, the “rediscovery” of which was a major pillar of Reformation theology simply cannot be used to prop up a universalist eschatology because of the scriptural conditions placed upon this grace, namely faith. Ephesians 2:8 notes that, “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Faith is the means by which grace is transmitted. As such, N.T. Wright cites the usual deficiency in the universalist line of argumentation: “most exegetes would agree that one of Paul’s foundational doctrines is justification by faith, which has its dark side in the implication: no faith, no justification” (55). Against such lines of objections, Jones’ only logical recourse is to postulate a postmortem encounter with the living God in which “God’s gracious love ‘irresistibly’ confronts and empowers all persons- even the most horrendously evil- to say an authentic and gracious yes to God,” in which “we will all be irresistibly moved by God’s almighty love” (723). This is certainly a lovely and attractive argument: when all is revealed and laid bare before unrepentant eyes that have finally been opened by God’s glorious light, who could possibly say no to God?

This is Jones’ writing at its best and most compelling… but also at its least biblical. The scriptural witness is clear that even when presented with the glory of God in all its splendor, there are those who will prefer the darkness of ignorance and evil to the light of the truth and righteousness of God. Jesus, YHWH’s fullest revelation to his people, was mocked, beaten, cursed, and ultimately killed by those to whom he was sent. Israel had God’s glorious revelation in her midst, yet many still turned away from Him. Right after the great declaration of God’s loving action on behalf of his creation in John 3:16, Jesus himself declared to Nicodemus, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed” (John 3:19-20). I can only concur with the verdict- the light of God’s presence is already in the world, and yet still, it is rejected by some.

As a result of this rejection, “Dual destiny,” to borrow Jones’ somewhat pejorative terminology for the traditional belief of orthodox Christianity, is so clearly expressed throughout the scriptures that it frankly takes a remarkable feat of willful ignorance not to see it. It is there running throughout the Hebrew scriptures, including one of the earliest that mentions the resurrection of the dead, Daniel 12:1-3 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” Despite the apocalyptic imagery and rhetoric, one can clearly see the implication of such a “dual destiny” amidst the good news of deliverance: Many of the dead will arise, some to “everlasting life” and others to “shame and everlasting contempt.”

The scriptural witness could not be clearer- we will not all share the same ultimate destiny despite however much we might wish for universal redemption and reconciliation. What is not clear in the scriptures is the nature of the destiny of the “unsaved.” Against the traditional view of hell as some sort of everlasting conscious torment, some have posited an “annihilationist” view whereby the unredeemed are simply destroyed or wiped out of existence, thereby allowing Christ to reconcile “all things to himself” as Colossians 1:20 declares, while still allowing for the possibility of “dual destiny.” This is the direction toward which I find myself leaning because it seems to me to best account for the bulk of the scriptural eschatological statements. Whatever one’s views of the nature of the destiny of the unredeemed, the doctrine of an alternate destiny cannot be denied by those for whom scripture is the final, authoritative teacher on matters of faith.

In closing, I reiterate my statement at the outset of this exploration: salvation for all, including our worst enemies must be the ultimate hope of Christians who embrace Christ’s call to love one’s enemies. Yet the biblical witness consistently and plainly teaches that despite our best wishes, this cannot be the case. Wright’s concluding comments in “Toward a Biblical View of Universalism” seem an appropriate way to conclude this discussion:

"I frequently meet people who tell me that they are ‘universalists’ in the usual sense while in no way thinking the Bible supports their view. This position is perfectly clear: I simply disagree with its view of scripture, of God and of Christ. What is not even clear is the position of the person who maintains that universalism finds support in the Bible. It might be more comforting if it did: but we are in this business to discover truth." (58)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments or criticism?

:deal:


Hello, Rando -

I deeply appreciate how you consistently avoid belittling or vilifying those who have reached conclusions that differ from your own. Indeed, you recognize how those who believe in universal salvation expect the very best of all possible outcomes - the hope of which must be shared my every good follower of the way and by the Lord himself.

You are right about one thing: universalists should admit that their view runs counter to what the Bible says. I have used the argument myself that the set of all people who will go to hell (based on qualities and specifications given in the Bible) could be an empty, null set, without technically contradicting the Bible. But I recognize now that this is a bit of sophistry. I think the Bible really does advance the point of view that some people are going to go to hell. But I am still a universalist. What to do?

To be a sincere and consistent universalist I have to say that some things in the Bible are incorrect. I realize this is the highest of all no-nos for many who study and revere the Bible, but not for all of them. Some say, I among them, that there are Biblical things that just do not belong to a proper understanding of the nature and attributes of God. For instance, I deny that God ever wanted people to have their disobedient children killed, or that he wanted men with deformed genitals to be cast out from the community of the Lord, or that he sent a bear to rend a group of kids who called a traveling prophet "baldy".

Some of what we affirm about God does not expicitly originate in the Bible. Doctrines about his omnipotence and omnibenevolence come rather from philosophers who have said these things must be true about God if he can do the things attributed to him and if he is truly worthy of our adoration and worship. In some ways, I think the Bible is not all one needs to fully understand God to the best of one's human ability.

I cannot see the Bible as being "set in stone". Rather, it is a dynamic and evolving document that reflects the best understanding of God at the time its respective books were written. We see that especially in how Jesus was willing to directly contradict what the "Bible" of his time said (it seems to me that those who try to explain this fact away are engaging in a little sophistry themselves!). For that reason, I feel forced to concede a scriptural passage may be wrong, rather than deny what I think must be true about God.

The central question, in my view, in the debate over whether salvation is universal or not, is this: If a person is savable, will God save him? it doesn't make any difference to bring up the issue of free will here, because every sane person, if he understands the choice of eternity with God versus eternity in agony, will choose the former - if he adequately comprenhends the alternatives before him. The idea that some people who are not insane will chose damnation with eyes wide open is utter nonsense.

So what we want to know is this: Does God, who wants to save all, possess the power to make the choice of salvation versus damnation clear to every person? If he does, then no one will choose damnation. But if his omnipotent abilities do not include that power, then it must be that he made some people who cannot be reached by any conceivable means - who cannot be saved.

For what possible reason would our omnibenevolent God do such a thing as that?

I believe that Christian universalism will become orthodoxy in the coming generations. It may even be that some literature affirming universalism will become canon, which would not be very shocking if scripture is dynamic and evolutionary as I think it is.

[smaller]

Okay, here it is!

The main text I worked with was the section entitled "Interlude: is there a dual destiny?" from Joe Jones' A Grammar of the Christian Faith (http://www.grammaroffaith.com/), in which he lays out his case for universalism. A good biblically based rebuttal to the common Christian universalist position can be found in N.T. Wright, Themelios, January 1979 (pp.54-58). That's the Wright article I quote from several times in this paper. The Justo Gonzalez quotation is from The Story of Christianity, Volume I. I would love to hear any comments you may have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob Arner 12-7-05
Systematic Theology I

Eschatology: Universal Salvation


In the purposes of God, salvation (in all its rich, biblical senses- not just the popular “individual souls going to heaven” sense) is clearly God’s nature and his will for his creation. Yet the question is sometimes raised by theologians who perceive this trend- will God’s salvific acts on behalf of his creation extend to every one of us? Or in other words, will all humanity eventually be saved? Joe R. Jones tackles this question head-on in his book A Grammar of Christian Faith by addressing the issue of whether or not humankind is bound for a “dual destiny,” as he calls it. I would like now to examine Jones’ point of view in order to weigh its merits and shortcomings in light of the scriptural witness.

Jones opens his “Interlude” section on dual destiny by admitting that “this conviction has been an essential presupposition of much Christian soteriological and eschatological discourse and practice” (709). Wishing to challenge this fundamental assumption, Jones posits that “ultimately, the class of the unsaved or damned is empty” (710). Now clearly, this needs to be considered the Christian’s ultimate hope. For Christians who truly heed Christ’s call to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, wishing for someone to reject God and be subject to his holy judgment as a result is not an option. Scripture is also clear that God’s own desire is for all to humble themselves before him and so be saved through Jesus Christ (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9), so in effect, I believe that one could safely say that universal salvation is the will of God insofar that God would like that all would come to worship him. This is confirmed by the general trend throughout scripture of God consistently reaching out to his creation when they fall into sin, whether through the series of covenants made throughout the Old Testament, the prophets God sends to call his people to repentance, or the ultimate act of divine initiative, the Incarnation of Christ. In this, I believe Jones accurately assesses God’s will.

Where I differ with Jones is in my reading of the Bible that suggests that unfortunately, God’s will (qelhma) is not always accomplished. I do not believe that God imposes his will on his creation without their consent, for this very idea shatters the notion of covenant that runs so deeply throughout the scriptures. A covenant is a two-way street, and includes God’s promise of faithfulness, blessing and salvation as long as the people entering into the covenantal relationship with the Lord remain faithful. In this regard, the covenantal promises throughout scripture are almost always conditional.

The biggest problem I see in Jones’ presentation is that he simply does not argue from scripture. That is not to say that his argument is not biblical, for he does demonstrate a profound respect for the salvific trends running throughout scripture, but in making his case, he neither draws upon specific texts to support his view nor reckons seriously with the vast quantity of scriptural evidence that seems to repudiate his notion of universal salvation. Along these lines, N.T. Wright notes in “Toward a Biblical View of Universalism” that “the proponents of universalism admit very readily that their doctrine conflicts with much biblical teaching” (55). To this effect, Jones himself even concedes that “dual destiny seems to be a theme of much biblical testimony” (711). The one biblical text Jones offers as support for his position is 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, and his argument seems to hinge on the translation of one word, katargew. Why, he asks, should we interpret katargew to mean “something like ‘annihilation’” for the powers and rulers when in the same passage, the powers and rulers are said to “submit” (upotassw) to Christ? (711) The major problem with this objection is that the range of meaning for katargew is not unlimited. It can mean “abolish, cancel, nullify, destroy, do away with,” according to several common Greek dictionaries and lexicons I consulted. A theology of salvation must start with a firm groundwork of scripture, but Jones seems to have jumped immediately over the biblical texts that challenge his position, with nary even a hat tip in their direction, and proceeded directly to the second-level theologizing. While this in itself is not an illegitimate line of argumentation, it leaves the possibility (and it seems, the probability) that far to much of what the scriptures actually say is being ignored in favor of a therapeutic soteriology of universalism that tickles the ears of modern readers.

Jones then goes on to acknowledge the lack of favor universalism has historically received in the Church, saying “I will also concede that dual destiny is a central theme of much of the traditions’ talk about salvation and eschatology” (712), but chalks this up to his belief that it has been a mostly unexamined premise of historical theology and eschatology. Sticking with the theme of historical Christian tradition for a moment, we see that the idea of universal salvation was first proposed by Origen, writing in the early third century, about what he called Apokatastasis, or the belief that all creatures (including the devil) would ultimately be saved and that the world “is undergoing a process of restoration to one and the same end and likeness” (Origen, De Principiis Book I, Chapter 6, section 4). Origen, part of the Alexandrian school of biblical hermeneutics, was typically known for his emphasis on allegorical interpretation of scripture. Though he was a firm proponent of preserving the “traditions of the apostles” in Church teaching, Origen also felt free to engage in “great speculative flights” with regard to scriptural interpretation. The danger of teaching such allegorical interpretations as normative as Origen often did is that the authorial intent of scripture is all-too-frequently lost in favor of a subjective, “spiritual” reading of the Bible. Gonzalez ultimately evaluates Origen’s efforts with a degree of skepticism: “it is also important to note that on many points Origen is more Platonist than Christian” (81). This evaluation is accurate due to the Platonic influence, which is both overly dualistic and spiritualistic, that runs throughout Origen’s writings. This same tendency can be seen in Jones’ thought, particularly in his skipping over an exploration of the biblical texts and proceeding directly to the second level of theologizing.

Jones’ main argument for universal salvation is offered on the grounds of the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace. “We ground our hope for the future,” he writes, “in God’s sovereign and free self-determined grace and not in our own righteousness or in fear of our own unrighteousness and God’s judgment or in fear of the withdrawal of God’s grace” (716). While I know of no biblical Christian who would reject this statement as written as an accurate description of the Christian hope in the grace of God, the conspicuous part of Jones’ argument is what he implicitly does not say. The Pauline doctrine of justification by grace, the “rediscovery” of which was a major pillar of Reformation theology simply cannot be used to prop up a universalist eschatology because of the scriptural conditions placed upon this grace, namely faith. Ephesians 2:8 notes that, “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Faith is the means by which grace is transmitted. As such, N.T. Wright cites the usual deficiency in the universalist line of argumentation: “most exegetes would agree that one of Paul’s foundational doctrines is justification by faith, which has its dark side in the implication: no faith, no justification” (55). Against such lines of objections, Jones’ only logical recourse is to postulate a postmortem encounter with the living God in which “God’s gracious love ‘irresistibly’ confronts and empowers all persons- even the most horrendously evil- to say an authentic and gracious yes to God,” in which “we will all be irresistibly moved by God’s almighty love” (723). This is certainly a lovely and attractive argument: when all is revealed and laid bare before unrepentant eyes that have finally been opened by God’s glorious light, who could possibly say no to God?

This is Jones’ writing at its best and most compelling… but also at its least biblical. The scriptural witness is clear that even when presented with the glory of God in all its splendor, there are those who will prefer the darkness of ignorance and evil to the light of the truth and righteousness of God. Jesus, YHWH’s fullest revelation to his people, was mocked, beaten, cursed, and ultimately killed by those to whom he was sent. Israel had God’s glorious revelation in her midst, yet many still turned away from Him. Right after the great declaration of God’s loving action on behalf of his creation in John 3:16, Jesus himself declared to Nicodemus, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed” (John 3:19-20). I can only concur with the verdict- the light of God’s presence is already in the world, and yet still, it is rejected by some.

As a result of this rejection, “Dual destiny,” to borrow Jones’ somewhat pejorative terminology for the traditional belief of orthodox Christianity, is so clearly expressed throughout the scriptures that it frankly takes a remarkable feat of willful ignorance not to see it. It is there running throughout the Hebrew scriptures, including one of the earliest that mentions the resurrection of the dead, Daniel 12:1-3 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” Despite the apocalyptic imagery and rhetoric, one can clearly see the implication of such a “dual destiny” amidst the good news of deliverance: Many of the dead will arise, some to “everlasting life” and others to “shame and everlasting contempt.”

The scriptural witness could not be clearer- we will not all share the same ultimate destiny despite however much we might wish for universal redemption and reconciliation. What is not clear in the scriptures is the nature of the destiny of the “unsaved.” Against the traditional view of hell as some sort of everlasting conscious torment, some have posited an “annihilationist” view whereby the unredeemed are simply destroyed or wiped out of existence, thereby allowing Christ to reconcile “all things to himself” as Colossians 1:20 declares, while still allowing for the possibility of “dual destiny.” This is the direction toward which I find myself leaning because it seems to me to best account for the bulk of the scriptural eschatological statements. Whatever one’s views of the nature of the destiny of the unredeemed, the doctrine of an alternate destiny cannot be denied by those for whom scripture is the final, authoritative teacher on matters of faith.

In closing, I reiterate my statement at the outset of this exploration: salvation for all, including our worst enemies must be the ultimate hope of Christians who embrace Christ’s call to love one’s enemies. Yet the biblical witness consistently and plainly teaches that despite our best wishes, this cannot be the case. Wright’s concluding comments in “Toward a Biblical View of Universalism” seem an appropriate way to conclude this discussion:

"I frequently meet people who tell me that they are ‘universalists’ in the usual sense while in no way thinking the Bible supports their view. This position is perfectly clear: I simply disagree with its view of scripture, of God and of Christ. What is not even clear is the position of the person who maintains that universalism finds support in the Bible. It might be more comforting if it did: but we are in this business to discover truth." (58)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments or criticism?

:deal:

Prepare for the lash...just kidding

Dual destiny is a sub-proposition (within the overall context of understanding Christian Universalism) and your critique is valid enough against that position.

I also decry that position as scripturally untenable and some of it's more notable proponents have been unable to address the finer points against the position.

If you dug further into the position you would find major flaws revolving around the infamous Lake of Fire judgment that make for a more valid critique, but you have whacked it good enough.

There are better understandings than what Mr. Jones is attempting. It is foolish for any believer to deny the eternal damnation scriptures or try to minimize or mitigate those scriptures. I hesitated to even study the entire subject of Christian Universalism because of the tendencies of some in that arena to overlook obvious judgment.

Fortunately the overall position does not revolve around that sub-premise.

Many even in traditional ETerism (eternal human torment) have shaky and uncertain views of exactly what will happen when and to whom and how.

enjoy!

smaller

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Dual destiny is a sub-proposition (within the overall context of understanding Christian Universalism) and your critique is valid enough against that position.

I also decry that position as scripturally untenable and some of it's more notable proponents have been unable to address the finer points against the position.

If you dug further into the position you would find major flaws revolving around the infamous Lake of Fire judgment that make for a more valid critique, but you have whacked it good enough.

There are better understandings than what Mr. Jones is attempting. It is foolish for any believer to deny the eternal damnation scriptures or try to minimize or mitigate those scriptures. I hesitated to even study the entire subject of Christian Universalism because of the tendencies of some in that arena to overlook obvious judgment.

Fortunately the overall position does not revolve around that sub-premise.



Ok,

Why is the "dual destiny" tack scripturally untenable?

What are the major flaws revolving around the Lake of Fire judgment?

What does the overall position revolve around if it does not revolve around the sub-premise of minimizing scripture?

[smaller]

Ok,

Why is the "dual destiny" tack scripturally untenable?

IMHO because there is a mistake made about the disposition of "unsaved mankind." Some forms of URism still retain the ETer positions in this matter and they try honestly to address these issues, but in doing so they stumble badly. They really should address the question from a different direction and some in UR land have done this more adequately.


What are the major flaws revolving around the Lake of Fire judgment?

That's a deep subject and I'm not going to hijack AR's thread with this stuff. I just wanted to point out that what Mr. Jones is presenting is not the view of all who hold to Christian Universalism.


What does the overall position revolve around if it does not revolve around the sub-premise of minimizing scripture?

Jesus being The Saviour of the world and of all mankind as stated numerous places in the scriptures.

[guacamole]

As a universalist, I concede that your point from scripture is well made, imo. All you have to prove is dual destiny from scripture, and you've chosen you passage well. You also haven't gone off on the 'eternal torment' red herring, which isn't germane to the discussion as you've framed it.

fwiw
guaca.

[Amazing Rando]

Good discussion guys! I'll drop by sometime tomorrow to respond to Duder, smaller, and Guac. Hasta manana!

[Amazing Rando]

Hello, Rando -

I deeply appreciate how you consistently avoid belittling or vilifying those who have reached conclusions that differ from your own. Indeed, you recognize how those who believe in universal salvation expect the very best of all possible outcomes - the hope of which must be shared my every good follower of the way and by the Lord himself.

:hi: I haven't always been so gracious to those with whom I disagree. For example, last year, I had a series of discussions with "Mid-Acts Dispensationalists" in the Bob Enyart mold in which I was frequently less than civil. I think I've learned to hold my tongue a bit more than I had in the past.

Trust me- you and I share the same hope in that. As I said in my paper regarding scripture passages like 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, it looks as if it's even God's hope that everyone would turn back to Him. I'd imagine anyone knowing and walking with the Risen Lord would want the same thing for everybody.

You are right about one thing: universalists should admit that their view runs counter to what the Bible says. I have used the argument myself that the set of all people who will go to hell (based on qualities and specifications given in the Bible) could be an empty, null set, without technically contradicting the Bible. But I recognize now that this is a bit of sophistry. I think the Bible really does advance the point of view that some people are going to go to hell. But I am still a universalist. What to do?

To be a sincere and consistent universalist I have to say that some things in the Bible are incorrect. I realize this is the highest of all no-nos for many who study and revere the Bible, but not for all of them. Some say, I among them, that there are Biblical things that just do not belong to a proper understanding of the nature and attributes of God. For instance, I deny that God ever wanted people to have their disobedient children killed, or that he wanted men with deformed genitals to be cast out from the community of the Lord, or that he sent a bear to rend a group of kids who called a traveling prophet "baldy".

That's where we differ- I just can't bring myself to go there. While I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of "inerrancy" as has been articulated by the more "conservative" segment of Christianity for the last hundred years or so, I nonetheless hold a high view of scripture as a record of the history of God's unfolding revelation to humanity. My own set of presuppositions and assumptions with which I engage scripture does not enable me to simply write off the bits of the scriptural witness that make me uncomfortable or to which I may morally object.

I guess I simply take seriously the consistent characterization of YHWH, the God of Israel, as a "jealous God" as in, for example, Exodus 34:14 "Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. " or Deuteronomy 4:23-24 "23Be careful not to forget the covenant of the LORD your God that he made with you; do not make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything the LORD your God has forbidden. 24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God."

If you'd like me to explain more about why I view God and the scriptures this way, I'd be happy to explain.

Some of what we affirm about God does not expicitly originate in the Bible. Doctrines about his omnipotence and omnibenevolence come rather from philosophers who have said these things must be true about God if he can do the things attributed to him and if he is truly worthy of our adoration and worship. In some ways, I think the Bible is not all one needs to fully understand God to the best of one's human ability.

I would agree only insofar as a relationship with the Living God is crucial. You can't have a relationship with someone based on 2,000 year old documents! Such a faith that begins with and ends with the Bible I too would affirm as dead.

I cannot see the Bible as being "set in stone". Rather, it is a dynamic and evolving document that reflects the best understanding of God at the time its respective books were written. We see that especially in how Jesus was willing to directly contradict what the "Bible" of his time said (it seems to me that those who try to explain this fact away are engaging in a little sophistry themselves!). For that reason, I feel forced to concede a scriptural passage may be wrong, rather than deny what I think must be true about God.

I view the "updating" of the scriptures by Jesus not in terms of him declaring that such and such a principle is in and of itself wrong, but rather in terms of the Incarnation. As I suggested in the TC thread, Jesus is the enfleshment of the eternal God, come to set all things right in the world that we have screwed up so miserably. I believe that the guiding principles and laws God gave the Israelites were what he wanted for their own time, but that the ethics and lifestyle taught by Jesus and his apostles is what God wants from us today.

The central question, in my view, in the debate over whether salvation is universal or not, is this: If a person is savable, will God save him? it doesn't make any difference to bring up the issue of free will here, because every sane person, if he understands the choice of eternity with God versus eternity in agony, will choose the former - if he adequately comprenhends the alternatives before him. The idea that some people who are not insane will chose damnation with eyes wide open is utter nonsense.

That's more or less the position of one lady in my Systematic Theology class the day we discussed this topic in class. I actually discussed this a bit in my essay above- the end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th paragraphs from the top.

Essentially I point out that even in Jesus' lifetime, when YHWH Himself visited his creation and Israel had his presence in her midst, the hard-hearted still despised, rejected, and ultimately killed him. Even among the disciples themselves, to whom Jesus most fully disclosed and revealed his identity, one of them still hated him enough to betray him, the agony of which ultimately destroyed him. I'd like to plagiarize myself now, quoting from my paper: "Right after the great declaration of God’s loving action on behalf of his creation in John 3:16, Jesus himself declared to Nicodemus, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed” (John 3:19-20). I can only concur with the verdict- the light of God’s presence is already in the world, and yet still, it is rejected by some."

One thing I want to avoid however is the tendency by some to draw the line between good and evil at "us versus them," with "us" being the good guys and "them" being the bad guys. One thing I believe the scriptures make very clear is that line between good and evil runs deeply through each and every one of us, and a smarmy, smug self-righteousness can never be an option for one who would follow Jesus. It is because of this caveat that I make every attempt to enter into my theologizing with humility, knowing, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said, that true theology can only begin with silence.

So that I'm not misunderstood, I want to make it clear that I'm not drawing the line between "good and evil" at the "saved and the unsaved," as many are wont to do. Only God knows a person's heart, and the judgment of each individual is entirely God's prerogative, not ours. What I am saying, is that everywhere I turn in the scriptures, I'm faced with the underlying assumption and belief of all the biblical writers that God can and does exercise this prerogative for judgment. Paul explicitly cites this principle in Romans 12:19 in declaring the basis on which the Christian practice of nonviolence and prohibition of revenge is based. Here's the central thrust of my argument here: It is frankly inconceivable to me that each and every biblical author, not to mention Jesus Christ himself, would be mistaken in this regard.

So what we want to know is this: Does God, who wants to save all, possess the power to make the choice of salvation versus damnation clear to every person? If he does, then no one will choose damnation. But if his omnipotent abilities do not include that power, then it must be that he made some people who cannot be reached by any conceivable means - who cannot be saved.

For what possible reason would our omnibenevolent God do such a thing as that?

I believe that Christian universalism will become orthodoxy in the coming generations. It may even be that some literature affirming universalism will become canon, which would not be very shocking if scripture is dynamic and evolutionary as I think it is.

Perhaps in a Unitarian Universalist (http://www.uua.org/) congregation this might be the case, but not for the Body of Christ. It is my conviction that the Holy Spirit was and is at work in the world, keeping the Church safe from harm of all kinds, and that it was this same Spirit that led the early church in the process of canonization.

[Amazing Rando]

As a universalist, I concede that your point from scripture is well made, imo. All you have to prove is dual destiny from scripture, and you've chosen you passage well. You also haven't gone off on the 'eternal torment' red herring, which isn't germane to the discussion as you've framed it.

fwiw
guaca.

The reason I didn't delve into the subject of "eternal torment" was because I believe a solid scriptural case can be made for either the traditional view or for annihilation of those God does not save. There seems to be a little tension even within the NT itself on this. It's for this same reason I don't take a dogmatically hard-lined view on free-will vs. determinism (AKA Arminianism vs. Calvinism), because I think there is about equal amounts of scriptural evidence that genuinely supports either position.

What I cannot accede to is the idea of universal redemption as a doctrine or as a fact (as opposed to a hope, which I do happen to share) because my high view of scripture won't permit it.

[queenannie]

Where I differ with Jones is in my reading of the Bible that suggests that unfortunately, God’s will (qelhma) is not always accomplished.
Perhaps from a NT examination alone it would not seem so. But God does not change, and the OT was not made null and void just because the laws of the flesh were abolished by the death of Jesus--and that is where we find many promises.

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
Isaiah 45:21-23 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Verse 23 refers to the promise made in Genesis 22—for there is no other instance meeting the description that God swore by Himself. I cannot see any hint, in these verses, of the possibility that God will not do exactly as He promised. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear—this is a direct statement that submission to God will be universal, at some point in time.

The main argument against UR is that some will, regardless of the fullness of His glory in the final revelation, still refuse to submit. And so the idea is that God wants us all saved, but we won’t all give in. What’s to say there something we don’t yet know or understand about God—something so glorious that, even given the potential of free will, no man would truly deny Him when He is fully seen by all? It doesn’t matter if we don’t understand the whys and wherefores, or even that we don’t see how the most stubborn will ever acquiesce. Is not the fact that God says it is so enough for us to believe that indeed it will be as He says? We cannot limit God’s majesty by our own wretched and blind tendencies. Isaiah 55:8-9, 11

On a personal note, I cannot conceive that God would do so great of a work and so unspeakable of a sacrifice and not do it completely. To ensure that we had a shepherd to open and guard the door of the sheep, even before we left the pasture in the first place—that kind of planning is only indicative of a perfect fruition of said plan. To lose even one sheep is to have given the Shepherd to a doomed mission. I cannot see God doing anything less than completely, especially when He said He would do it in full. To ‘prosper’ is not to ‘achieve the best possible results.’ To prosper is to succeed.
‘it shall accomplish that which I please.’ That also says that God’s will is superior to any man’s and what God wants God will cause to become reality.
I do not believe that God imposes his will on his creation without their consent, for this very idea shatters the notion of covenant that runs so deeply throughout the scriptures. A covenant is a two-way street, and includes God’s promise of faithfulness, blessing and salvation as long as the people entering into the covenantal relationship with the Lord remain faithful. In this regard, the covenantal promises throughout scripture are almost always conditional.
The nature of a covenant is not so much a vow as a contractual agreement—and in that fashion, every covenant is conditional. And of course the human end always seems to fall short of the mark. But certainly no instance of our failures surprised our Creator. I once did a study and found 7 covenants between God and man in the bible. A neat figure to arrive at, but I don’t presume to be correct in my findings. There are several, at any rate. Then there is one promise—written of in Genesis 22, one vow made by God, to Abraham, of His own free will, and not conditional in any way. The condition was retroactive—but not of a covenant. God did not bargain with Abraham for the life of his beloved Isaac. He just commanded, and Abraham obeyed with a stoicism that is unfathomable. Looking back to the laws given Moses governing free will offerings and fulfillments of vows made voluntarily to God, it can be seen that in every sacrificial law, God Himself kept His own law to the letter, of course in all ways these laws relate to Christ—but there are a myriad of laws and the many facets of the gift of grace reveal them in their full beauty.
The Pauline doctrine of justification by grace, the “rediscovery” of which was a major pillar of Reformation theology simply cannot be used to prop up a universalist eschatology because of the scriptural conditions placed upon this grace, namely faith. Ephesians 2:8 notes that, “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Faith is the means by which grace is transmitted.
Faith was the way that the grace was accomplished—it was the faith of Jesus, in obeying the trust given to His charge on behalf of Israel, and by extension, the entire world. The word faith is pistis—and in ancient Greek did not mean ‘belief’ as we consider it to mean today—which is actually better understood as ‘hope’—in the Greek it was ‘expectation, confidence,’ and trust as ‘trusting in something promised.’ And faith was used in the manner of ‘constancy, fidelity, truth, reliance,’ and its facet of ‘trust’ was in the sense of ‘keeping the charge entrusted to one’s keeping.’
The first one is reactive to the second, which is proactive. We trust in God’s constancy—‘great is thy faithfulness.’
Trusting in God to save us is to no avail if He cannot be depended upon to fulfill that trust. And that is what Ephesians 2:8 is saying—God ensured our trust was not in vain, before any of us knew there was anything to hope in at all. When Christ said ‘it is finished’ He was referring to the fulfillment of the charge He had been given, entrusted with on our behalf.
There are no conditions placed on this gift—the faith involved is not our own. If it were, then it would surely fail. But God did not give us the first 4000 years of human history for the purpose of just repeating something that only halfway worked. The lessons in the failures and shortcomings of the OT are for the express purpose that we should realize the enormity and irrevocable power of the gift.
This is certainly a lovely and attractive argument: when all is revealed and laid bare before unrepentant eyes that have finally been opened by God’s glorious light, who could possibly say no to God?
Well, Paul was the poster child of Mosaic law—Pharisee and to-the-letter Benjamite—qualified in every way to despise what he saw as a sedition causing false messiah who caused grievous blasphemy in the Jews by his teachings. Paul hated Jesus but loved God. Didn’t know, of course, the connection. It took what, maybe 3 minutes if even that long, on the road to Damascus when confronted with the one who had inspired what he considered crimes worthy of capital punishment? If God could convert Paul, God can convert anyone. That’s even what Paul says, more than once.
The scriptural witness is clear that even when presented with the glory of God in all its splendor, there are those who will prefer the darkness of ignorance and evil to the light of the truth and righteousness of God. Jesus, YHWH’s fullest revelation to his people, was mocked, beaten, cursed, and ultimately killed by those to whom he was sent. Israel had God’s glorious revelation in her midst, yet many still turned away from Him. It is also clear that this was part of the plan, too—this was a partial judgment on Israel, and was foretold by the prophets. It only happened because God willed it so—and ultimately even that seemingly blackest crime by some will end up being for the good of the all.
Right after the great declaration of God’s loving action on behalf of his creation in John 3:16, Jesus himself declared to Nicodemus, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed” (John 3:19-20). I can only concur with the verdict- the light of God’s presence is already in the world, and yet still, it is rejected by some.
But we are not done yet. God’s full brilliance has not yet been revealed.

1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
The scriptural witness could not be clearer- we will not all share the same ultimate destiny despite however much we might wish for universal redemption and reconciliation.
2 Corinthians 5:18-19 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
What is not clear in the scriptures is the nature of the destiny of the “unsaved.”
They are saved. Corinthians 3:13-15
They are healed. Revelation 22:2

Against the traditional view of hell as some sort of everlasting conscious torment, some have posited an “annihilationist” view whereby the unredeemed are simply destroyed or wiped out of existence, thereby allowing Christ to reconcile “all things to himself” as Colossians 1:20 declares, while still allowing for the possibility of “dual destiny.”
Why must we ‘allow’ some sort of loophole to account for what we are sure will be only a partial success of the work Christ finished?

Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Whatever one’s views of the nature of the destiny of the unredeemed, the doctrine of an alternate destiny cannot be denied by those for whom scripture is the final, authoritative teacher on matters of faith. I don’t agree. I hold scripture as the final authority, that is, within the instruction of the Spirit—and I see no certain partial redemption.

The reconciliation was already performed, in full, on the cross. Christ redeemed the world—at the time of the payment made, all were sinners and enemies of God.
In closing, I reiterate my statement at the outset of this exploration: salvation for all, including our worst enemies must be the ultimate hope of Christians who embrace Christ’s call to love one’s enemies. Yet the biblical witness consistently and plainly teaches that despite our best wishes, this cannot be the case.
If it were dependent upon our wishes, I would have to agree. It is not our will but God’s. And it is by His means and accomplished with His power. His plan. We often, fail—we rarely succeed on our own in whatever we do. Any success is temporal, in any case. But God is greater than we are, and I think any bible believer will agree.

Why not? If Christ taught us to love and forgive our enemies—which He exampled for us in His own meekness at the time of His execution—is that not an indicator that He did already love us all enough to forgive us all and die for us all?
" What is not even clear is the position of the person who maintains that universalism finds support in the Bible. It might be more comforting if it did: but we are in this business to discover truth." (58)
My last comment is personal, again. I did not find these scriptures to support an already existing hope in universal salvation—this was something that was literally revealed to me in my studies. I was both astounded and overwhelmed as it began to sink it. I searched and searched for something that opposed it—the more I looked to find the ‘why nots’ the more I discovered the ‘whys.’ I had to question my old ways of thinking and acceptance of what became increasingly clear as unscriptural. While there is much talk of punishment, judgment, and destruction in the bible, it is contained in the process of our redemption all throughout—but the final outcome is that the process is successful and what seemed like capital punishment is actually restoration. Destruction of the flesh is inevitable—but the restoration of the soul is promised and will be performed.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

[smaller]

The reason I didn't delve into the subject of "eternal torment" was because I believe a solid scriptural case can be made for either the traditional view or for annihilation of those God does not save. There seems to be a little tension even within the NT itself on this. It's for this same reason I don't take a dogmatically hard-lined view on free-will vs. determinism (AKA Arminianism vs. Calvinism), because I think there is about equal amounts of scriptural evidence that genuinely supports either position.

What I cannot accede to is the idea of universal redemption as a doctrine or as a fact (as opposed to a hope, which I do happen to share) because my high view of scripture won't permit it.

You also understand that Christian Universalism can be held without any contempt of the eternal torment scriptures, but you have to have Divine Help to get there.

The resistance factor in mankind increases dramatically as the Truth gets closer and this is another scriptural princple.